02-15-2018, 11:50 PM
I'm calm already, Maggot. I'm simply telling you that you're spewing bullshit and making inapplicable comparisons.
Burglars aren't the same as mass shooters and don't share the same motives or target selection criteria, obviously.
Anyway, if you don't understand my thinking, that's fine. But, my comment to you was pretty clear and it in no way suggested that I don't support enhanced security (though that's not 'the' answer).
As I said, check the facts. You'll see that some of the workplace murders went down where there was armed security or armed people in the workplace. Police stations and military bases have been attacked; not exactly soft targets. There was armed security at the high school yesterday. There were armed students at the Oregon community college mass shooting (who wisely chose not to try to intervene for risk of getting shot by responding cops), etc...
Those are a few examples, factual examples, contradicting your claim that nutcases never choose hard targets.
Look at the words, writings, and histories of mass shooters in this country. With rare exceptions, the mass shooters chose targets to which they had a personal connection -- like they were bullied there, they were fired or kicked out there, they were done wrong there, they were heartbroken there, they hated people who were there...
I've never seen an account of an American mass shooter having chosen a target because of the gun policy surrounding it. Still, I often hear the Americans who immediately dive into defending/advocating guns after every mass shooting suggest that fewer gun-free zones is the answer because nutcases always look for soft targets (where there are no "good guys with guns" ready to save the day).
Burglars aren't the same as mass shooters and don't share the same motives or target selection criteria, obviously.
Anyway, if you don't understand my thinking, that's fine. But, my comment to you was pretty clear and it in no way suggested that I don't support enhanced security (though that's not 'the' answer).
As I said, check the facts. You'll see that some of the workplace murders went down where there was armed security or armed people in the workplace. Police stations and military bases have been attacked; not exactly soft targets. There was armed security at the high school yesterday. There were armed students at the Oregon community college mass shooting (who wisely chose not to try to intervene for risk of getting shot by responding cops), etc...
Those are a few examples, factual examples, contradicting your claim that nutcases never choose hard targets.
Look at the words, writings, and histories of mass shooters in this country. With rare exceptions, the mass shooters chose targets to which they had a personal connection -- like they were bullied there, they were fired or kicked out there, they were done wrong there, they were heartbroken there, they hated people who were there...
I've never seen an account of an American mass shooter having chosen a target because of the gun policy surrounding it. Still, I often hear the Americans who immediately dive into defending/advocating guns after every mass shooting suggest that fewer gun-free zones is the answer because nutcases always look for soft targets (where there are no "good guys with guns" ready to save the day).